Re: [TLS] [pkix] Cert Enumeration and Key Assurance With DNSSEC

Martin Rex <> Mon, 18 October 2010 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBC3B3A6B90 for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.888
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.361, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 94x8NkQwBCbv for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 861743A6B8B for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:27:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from by (26) with ESMTP id o9IISuBw010421 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 18 Oct 2010 20:29:01 +0200 (MEST)
From: Martin Rex <>
Message-Id: <>
To: (Bruno Harbulot)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 20:28:55 +0200 (MEST)
In-Reply-To: <> from "Bruno Harbulot" at Oct 18, 10 06:51:32 pm
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AntiVirus: checked by Avira MailGate (version: 3.1.2; AVE:; VDF:; host: virwal02); id=13130-KKaqPz
X-SAP: out
Subject: Re: [TLS] [pkix] Cert Enumeration and Key Assurance With DNSSEC
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:27:34 -0000

EV vs. DV is primarily about "risk management", based on the
flawed assumption that "green-bar" vs. blue-bar/white-bar 
would affect user behaviour.

Look at the real world:
signin.ebay.<country> uses an EV-Cert, probably because ebay may
have to pay for damages if someone steals user account credentials
and abuses them.

payments.ebay.<country> uses a DV-Cert, because the user bears all
risks from his payment data getting leaked.


Bruno Harbulot wrote:
> On 04/10/10 21:04, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> >
> > For the past five years, CA certificates have been divided into Domain
> > Validated and Extended Validated. As some of you know, I instigated the
> > process that led to the creation of EV certs because I was very worried
> > about the low quality of many DV certificates.
> >
> > Some DV certificates are of very low quality. Which is why I would like
> > to see the padlock icon phased out entirely. Why does the user need to
> > know if encryption is being used at all?
> I'm still not convinced about the greatness of EV certificates.
> Why should an organization that wants to deploy its own PKI have to 
> depend on one of the big players who've managed to get their signature 
> hard-coded into browsers?
> How beneficial are EV certs for the end-users? Green-bar secure v.s. 
> Blue-bar insecure (or less secure) really is a confusing 
> over-simplification.
> A DV certs bind a cert to a domain, whereas an EV cert bind a cert to a 
> company name. However, some companies use domain names that have nothing 
> to do with their company name, and which could look like competitors 
> instead: